Doli Incapax
Doli Incapax - The Criminal Responsibility of Children
A paper by Matthew Johnston, barrister Forbes Chambers, Sydney for the Children’s Magistrates’ Conference 1 February 2006
“ ‘No civilised society’, says Professor Colin Howard in his book entitled Criminal Law, 4th ed. (1982), p343, ‘regards children as accountable for their actions to the same extent as adults’ ... The wisdom of protecting young children against the full rigour of the law is beyond argument. The difficulty lies in determining when and under what circumstances should it be removed.”[i]
Harper J; R (A Child) v Whitty (1993) A Crim R 462
Marge Simpson: Well, I’m just relieved that Homer’s safe and that you’ve recovered and that we can all get back to normal. If Maggie could talk I’m sure she’d apologise for shooting you.
Montgomery Burns: I’m afraid that’s insufficient. Officer, arrest the baby!
Chief Wiggum: Hah. Yeah, right, pops. No jury in the world’s going to convict a baby. Mmm … maybe Texas.
The Simpsons: Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part II
Smithers: That Simpson’s boy is looking at 180 years.
Montgomery Burns: Thank God we live in a country so hysterical over crime that a ten year-old child can be tried as an adult.
The Simpsons: Bart the Murderer
1.0 The Age of Criminal Responsibility
In New South Wales section 5 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 provides that a child under the age of ten years cannot commit an offence. This statutory presumption is irrebuttable.
The common law presumes that a child between the ages of 10 and 14 does not possess the necessary knowledge to have a criminal intention. This common law presumption of doli incapax is a rebuttable presumption that can be rebutted by the prosecution calling evidence. This means that the prosecution, in addition to proving the elements of the offence, must also prove that the child knew that what he
A paper by Matthew Johnston, barrister Forbes Chambers, Sydney for the Children’s Magistrates’ Conference 1 February 2006
“ ‘No civilised society’, says Professor Colin Howard in his book entitled Criminal Law, 4th ed. (1982), p343, ‘regards children as accountable for their actions to the same extent as adults’ ... The wisdom of protecting young children against the full rigour of the law is beyond argument. The difficulty lies in determining when and under what circumstances should it be removed.”[i]
Harper J; R (A Child) v Whitty (1993) A Crim R 462
Marge Simpson: Well, I’m just relieved that Homer’s safe and that you’ve recovered and that we can all get back to normal. If Maggie could talk I’m sure she’d apologise for shooting you.
Montgomery Burns: I’m afraid that’s insufficient. Officer, arrest the baby!
Chief Wiggum: Hah. Yeah, right, pops. No jury in the world’s going to convict a baby. Mmm … maybe Texas.
The Simpsons: Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part II
Smithers: That Simpson’s boy is looking at 180 years.
Montgomery Burns: Thank God we live in a country so hysterical over crime that a ten year-old child can be tried as an adult.
The Simpsons: Bart the Murderer
1.0 The Age of Criminal Responsibility
In New South Wales section 5 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 provides that a child under the age of ten years cannot commit an offence. This statutory presumption is irrebuttable.
The common law presumes that a child between the ages of 10 and 14 does not possess the necessary knowledge to have a criminal intention. This common law presumption of doli incapax is a rebuttable presumption that can be rebutted by the prosecution calling evidence. This means that the prosecution, in addition to proving the elements of the offence, must also prove that the child knew that what he